Smadi v. True

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 12, 2018

HOSAM SMADI, Petitioner,v.WILLIAM TRUE, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge

Petitioner,
currently incarcerated in U.S. Penitentiary Marion, brings
this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to challenge the loss of good conduct time based on
discipline he received at Marion on April 25, 2017. (Doc. 1,
pp. 1-2, 7).

Rule 4
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives
this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases.

The
Petition

Petitioner
lost 27 days of good conduct time based on Incident Report
2958966, which charged him with a violation of Prohibited Act
201, “threats-threatening statements.” (Doc. 1,
p. 2).

The
subject event took on March 5, 2017 when Petitioner sent an
email to his sister in which he said, “What about the
teachers, are they nice. Tell everybody of them, that I say
take care of my little sister with good scores or I blow up
the shit!! ha ha.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner received
the disciplinary report the next day on March 6, 2017; the
hearing was held on March 23, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 2).

Petitioner
alleges that his due process rights were violated when he was
deprived of his good conduct credit because the hearing
officer did not have some evidence that Petitioner possessed
the necessary intent to threaten anyone, improperly applied
an objective standard, and failed to adequately consider
Petitioner's mental health issues. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
Petitioner has affirmatively stated that he exhausted his
administrative remedies. Id.

Petitioner
alleges that he was not given due process when deprived of
his good conduct credit. In the context of a prison
disciplinary hearing, due process requires that the prisoner
receive: (1) written notice of the claimed violation at least
24 hours before hearing; (2) an opportunity to call witnesses
and present documentary evidence (when consistent with
institutional safety) to an impartial decision-maker; and (3)
a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied
on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. See
Scruggs v. Jordan,485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007);
Wolff v. McDonnell,418 U.S. 539 (1974). A
disciplinary decision must be supported by “some
evidence” to satisfy due process. Scruggs, 485
F.3d at 941 (quoting Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst.,
Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (revocation of
good conduct credits must be supported by “some
evidence” in order to satisfy due process concerns));
Austin v. Pazera,779 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2015);
Grandberry v. Smith, 754 F.3d 425, 426 (7th Cir.
2014).

Petitioner's
request for restoration of good conduct credit is properly
raised in the habeas petition. Jones, 637 F.3d 841
(presenting due process claim); Waletzki, 13 F.3d
1079 (denial of good time credits lengthened sentence and
brought claim within ambit of § 2241). His claim of
specific due process violations in connection with
disciplinary charges and hearing are also properly addressed
in this habeas action.

Without
commenting on the merits of Petitioner's claims, the
Court concludes that the petition survives preliminary review
under Rule 4 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in United States District Courts.

IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the
§ 2241 petition (Doc. 1) or otherwise plead within
thirty days of the date this order is entered. This
preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude
the Government from raising any objection or defense it may
wish to present. Service upon the United States Attorney for
the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East
St. Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule
72.1(a)(2), this cause is referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Clifford J. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.